Allowed

Sri Jai Kapadia v. the Official Liquidator of

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023CA/8/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a delay of 1196 days in filing a claim petition by a workman under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 using Rule 177 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, directing the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claim on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1196 days in filing the claim petition is condoned; Official Liquidator directed to consider the claim on merits.

Sri Jai Kapadia Vs the Official Liquidator of — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CA No. 8/2023 IN COP NO.214/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

CA NO.8/2023 IN

COP NO.214/2012

BETWEEN:

SRI JAI KAPADIA, S/O SRI PRASAN MUKH KAPADIA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.903 SALVADOR, FORTALEZA KALYANI NAGAR, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411 006.

¶11

…APPLICANT

¶12

(BY SRI. JAYARAMA B L.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 12^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K S MAHADEVAN.,ADVOCATE FOR OL)

¶17

THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 177 OF HE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1959 R/W SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO CONDONE DELAY OF 1196 DAYS IN PREFERRING THE CLAIM FORM NO.67 AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND DIRECT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPLICANT, AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

CA No. 8/2023 IN COP NO.214/2012

¶20

THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The subject matter of this Application is substantially

¶23

similar to the one in C.A.No.367/2022 in Co.P.No.214/2012 between SANTOSH KUMAR vs. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD., disposed off on 11.01.2023 wherein at paragraph 2 it is observed as under:

¶24

“2. It is stated at the Bar that ordinarily, application for condoning delay are favorably considered by the Company Courts subject to all just exceptions into which the argued case of the applicant does not fit. More prejudice would be caused than otherwise, should delay be not condoned more particularly when the claimant happens to be the workman who is otherwise placed in a protective condition under Section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 on pari passu basis.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits and

¶26

this Court agrees with that once relief is granted to a litigant, the same needs to be extended to other similarly circumstanced litigants in the absence of any repugnant factors warranting an otherwise decision. This is consistent with the doctrine of equality & parity of treatment.

¶27

¶28

CA No. 8/2023 IN COP NO.214/2012

¶29

The Applicant has offered a plausible explanation

¶30

for the delay in submitting his claim petition to the Official Liquidator. If that delay is not condoned in the circumstances of the case, a great injustice would be caused to the applicant. Conversely, if delay is condoned, the same would not add to the merits of the claim and thus no prejudice would be caused to anyone. This apart, it is not that if the claim Petition was filed in time, it would have been disposed off. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that till date, the adjudication of the claims of others has also not taken place.

¶31

In view of the above, this Application succeeds. The delay of 1196 days in filing the claim petition is condoned. The Official Liquidator is directed to consider the claim petition on merits and in accordance with law.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Bsv

Sri Jai Kapadia v. the Official Liquidator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jai Kapadia v. the Official Liquidator of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K T Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L H Almel Vs the Commissioner

Puttaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raju Patil Vs the Official Liquidator

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S State Bank of India

Shri S.M.Krishnamurthy Vs the Official Liquidator of